04-17-00 PCNNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 12 April 2000
RE: Otsego - Highway 101 Market; Amendment/interim Use Permit
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Kenneth and Julie Nathe operate a seasonal produce business named Highway 101
Market on land owned by Richard LeFebvre at the northeast quadrant of CSAH 39 and
T.H. 101. The Nathes claim to have operated the Highway 101 Market since the spring
of 1997 and information suggests that produce sales have been occurring on the site since
the late 1960s. The 32 acre subject site is zoned A-1, Agricultural - Rural Service District
and is also within the WS, Wild and Scenic Overlay District. The property is within the
Sanitary Sewer Service District and is planned for future commercial uses.
Family operated seasonal produce stands were allowed in Otsego Township by the Wright
County Zoning Ordinance as an A-1 District permitted use, prior to incorporation in 1990.
Following incorporation and adoption of the local Zoning Ordinance, Section 20-26-8
allows for limited produce sales from properties defined as farms. Because of the more
restrictive nature of Otsego's Zoning Ordinance, the use of the Highway 101 Market is
considered a legal non -conforming use based upon its approved circumstances.
Following receipt of a complaint regarding the use of the site, a site inspection of the
subject project was conducted. Staff determined that the use has been expanded beyond
the intent of Wright County provisions and Otsego's non -conforming use provisions to
include sales of pre-packaged fruits and vegetables, wood craft items and manufactured
products. This suggests that the use would be defined more as a commercial produce
market than that of a family farm operation selling home-grown produce.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM
Following a report to the City Council, there were discussions with the property owner and
business operator as to potential means of legitimizing the existing use of the property.
Staff suggested that the property owner and business operator could apply for a text
amendment to make the existing use an interim use and for such a permit as early as
January 2000, when an application form was provided In late march, the business
operators were found to be erecting a greenhouse on the site. City Staff issued a stop
work order until the necessary application was filed and the planning process carried
through. As such, the applicants are now requesting that the City amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow non-farm seasonal produce stands as an interim use in the A-1 District
and approval of such a permit.
Attached for Reference:
Exhibit A: Site Location
Exhibit B: Wright County Use and Building Permit
Exhibit C: Applicant Narrative
Recommendation
Decisions regarding the allowance of specific land uses within the City is a policy issue to
be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. Options for action on the
request to allow non-farm related produce sales within the A-1 District are outlined under
Decision 1, below.
The applicants have not provided site specific information regarding the existing conditions
of the subject site. Based upon what is known, some modifications would be necessary
in order to conform with the conditions imposed by the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendment. Subject to approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment, the applicant will
be required to provide a site survey and other relevant information. The Planning
Commission and City Council should specify if that information is yet subject to their review
or City Staff may verify compliance. Options for action on the requested Interim Use
Permit are outlined under Decision 2.
Decision 1 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment
1. Motion to approve a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow non-farm related
seasonal produce sales as an interim use within the A-1 District based upon a
finding that the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the A-1
District.
Planning Report - Highway 101 Market AmendmenblUP
Page 2
2. Motion to deny the requested Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow non-farm
related seasonal produce sales as an interim use within the A-1 District based upon
a finding that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the
A-1 District.
3. Motion to table the application (Specific direction should be provided as to
additional information that must be submitted).
Decision 2 - Interim Use Permit
1. Motion to approve an interim use permit to allow non-farm seasonal produce sales
within the A-1 District subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant submit a site survey and building plans which is found to be
in conformance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to
review and approval of City Staff.
b. Retail produce sales may only be conducted on the subject site between
May 1 gt and October 31't of any given year.
C. The sales area devoted to produce not grown on the subject site shall be
limited to not more than ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the
principal use.
d. Retail sales of non -produce goods is prohibited.
e. Adequate off-street parking space and surface is provided and no parking
related to such sales occurs on the public right-of-way.
f. Signs:
Are located only on the private property of the farm owner/operator
and are no more than 100 feet from the point of sale.
ii Are limited to no more than two (2) structures totaling not more than
sixteen (16) square feet.
Iii. Are erected and removed daily and are not to be displayed at times
when the sales operation is closed.
g. All structures shall conform to the requirements of the Building Code and
sanitary facilities shall be provided.
Planning Report - Highway 101 Market Amendment/lUP
Page 3
h. Any or all on-site utilities are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
The Interim Use Permit shall expire at such time as municipal trunk sanitary
sewer and/or water service is extended to the east side of T. H. 101 to serve
any parcel within Section 14 or 23, T121 N - Range 23W or a period of five
(5) years, whichever occurs first.
j. The applicant enter into a development contract with the City, subject to
review and approval of the City Attorney.
k. Comments of other City Staff.
2. Motion to deny the requested Interim Use Permit to allow non-farm related
seasonal produce sales as an interim use within the A-1 District based upon a
finding that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the
A-1 District.
3. Motion to table the application (Specific direction should be provided as to
additional information that must be submitted).
ANALYSIS
Existing Regulations. The Wright County Zoning Ordinance, in effect in Otsego
Township prior to incorporation in 1991, allowed "Seasonal Produce Stands, family
operated" as a permitted use in the applicable A-1 District. In 1986, Wright County issued
a Use and Building Permit for a 48 x 88 pole building on the subject site for "winter storage
and selling corn in the summer". The building inspector's comments also note that the use
was for seasonal crop sales only, no other commercial use, no billboards, no permanent
advertising. Section 20-26-8 of the Zoning Ordinance, adopted in 1991, further regulated
farm related seasonal produce stands as follows:
B. A-1, Agricultural Rural Service Zoning District. Within the A-1 Zoning District, the
temporary seasonal sale of products produced solely on the site of the respective
farm is a permitted accessory use, that provided that:
1. Only members of the family occupying the residence on the farmstead are
engaged in such activity.
2. Only temporary, unenclosed display facilities are used to exhibit such items.
Planning Report - Highway 101 Market Amendment/IUP
Page 4
3. Adequate off-street parking is provided and no parking related to such sales
occurs on the public right-of-way.
4. Signs:
A. Are located only on the private property of the farm owner/operator
and are no more than 100 feet from the point of sale.
B. Are limited to no more than two (2) structures totaling not more than
sixteen (16) square feet.
C. Are erected and removed daily and are not to be displayed at times
when the sales operation is closed.
Based upon the site inspection, the current use of the subject site likely does not conform
with the limitations for grown -on -site -produce, employee provisions, facility restrictions and
signage limits. The only one of these violations that is considered a legal non -conformity
is the use of the enclosed pole building. Staff would interpret the other issues as violations
of the applicable Wright County provisions and permit. Further, based upon the
characteristic's of the Highway 101 market, City staff would also interpret that the use of
the site is not within the definition of a "farm" but would be that of a commercial business.
The erection of a greenhouse is also problematic. The Zoning Ordinance allows for
greenhouses, excluding retail sales as a permitted use in the A-1 District. However,
because staff would interpret the retail sales use of the existing pole barn as a principal
use of the property, the greenhouse would be considered accessory and incidental to the
retail sales use. As such, the greenhouse would represent the expansion of the existing
non -conforming use, and would not be allowed under Section 15 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Regulation Options. To allow the continued operation of the Highway 101 under its
present circumstances or with the expansion of the use to include the greenhouse, it is
necessary to make an allowance within the Zoning Ordinance. In considering the existing
use and characteristics of the subject site, the Planning Commission and City Council have
the following options to consider:
• Zoning District. Based upon the characteristic's of the use, it may be appropriate
to consider rezoning the subject site to a commercial district. However, the site
conditions in terms of building construction and materials, parking facilities,
landscaping, etc. are not up to the standards outlined for commercial properties.
As the subject site is with the Sanitary Sewer Service District, such a rezoning
would also be expected only to occur with the availability and connection to the
sanitary sewer and water systems (or provision for temporary holding tanks.
Planning Report - Highway 101 Market Amendment/IUP
Page 5
The information submitted by the applicants indicates that they do not intend to
improve the site at this time, but to continue "as is" until an undetermined point in
the future when a permanent commercial facility can be constructed. As such, our
office would suggest that commercial zoning of the site at this time is premature and
inconsistent with the City's Interim Land Use Plan. Accommodating the use within
the A-1 District is also problematic given the intent of the District as a rural holding
zone with low intensity uses and infrastructure investments. In order to address the
scale of the commercial use, compatibility with surrounding uses and impact to City
services, specific conditions would have to be imposed to minimize the intensity and
direct the location of such uses.
Interim Use. An approach to allowing the existing use of the site may be through
interim use. Interim uses are established for those uses that judged to be presently
acceptable and appropriate for a given area, but planned development dictates that
such uses would not be appropriate in the future and should be replaced with
another allowed use. If it is judged that the existing non -conforming produce sales
business is appropriate on the subject site at this time, interim use may be an
appropriate strategy. It must be emphasized however, that the commercial element
of the use should be restricted so as not to allow a use more appropriately located
in a commercial district. Failure to do so would allow the Highway 101 Market
inequitable treatment underthe Zoning Ordinance than allowed for other agriculture
properties or commercial produce sellers or grocery stores that may seek to locate
in the City. For this reason, our office suggests the following language for allowing
non-farm seasonal produce sale uses as an interim use in an A-1 District.-
C.
istrict:
C. Non-farm related seasonal produce sales as a principal use provided that:
Retail produce sales may only be conducted on the subject site
between May 13t and October 31 st of any given year.
2. The sales area devoted to produce not grown on the subject site shall
be limited to not more than ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of
the principal use.
3. Retail sales of non -produce goods is prohibited.
4. Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is not presently available
to the subject site.
5. The use have frontage to a arterial or collector street and direct
access from a paved City Street.
6. Adequate off-street parking space and surface is provided and no
parking related to such sales occurs on the public right-of-way.
Planning Report - Highway 101 Market Amendment/IUP
Page 6
7. Signs:
C. Are located only on the private property of the farm
owner/operator and are no more than 100 feet from the point
of sale.
d. Are limited to no more than two (2) structures totaling not more
than sixteen (16) square feet.
e. Are erected and removed daily and are not to be displayed at
times when the sales operation is closed.
• No Change. The third option for City Officials to consider is no change in the
existing regulations. The existing regulations would require the Highway 101
Market to adhere to the applicable performance standards approved as part of the
1986 Wright County permit and the Otsego Zoning Ordinance. The legal non-
conforming use of the existing pole building could continue. Issues pertaining to
sale of pre-packaged produce, sale of non -produce goods and signage, etc. would
not be allowed. The construction of the proposed greenhouse would also not be
allowed as it is expansion of a non -conforming use and use of an enclosed
structure inconsistent with Section 20-28-8.A of the Zoning Ordinance.
Interim Use Permit. Should the Planning Commission and City Council choose to
accommodate the existing use of the Highway 101 Market as an interim use, it is
necessary to evaluate the following requirements in addition to those requirements
suggested above:
• Lot Standards. The subject parcel exceeds the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements of the A-1 District.
• Setbacks. No site plan illustrating existing/proposed conditions has been
submitted. A condition of any approval should be submission of a site survey
illustrating existing site conditions, subject to review and approval of City Staff.
• Off -Street Parking. The use will be required to provide the necessary off-street
parking based upon the requirements outlined in Section 22 of the Zoning
Ordinance. As an existing site, the use of gravel parking areas may be
accommodated, although an asphalt surface is preferred. However, the required
spaces must be provided along with concrete bollards to define the parking area.
• Utilities. The location and design of any existing site utilities must be identified and
be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Planning Report - Highway 101 Market AmendmenblUP
Page 7
• Building Code. Given the commercial nature of the use, structures associated with
the use should be expected to meet the minimum safety and performance standards
applicable to commercial buildings. Another issue that should be addressed is the
provision of sanitary facilities as would be required of a commercial use. Because
the subject site would not be defined as a farm under the Zoning Ordinance,
construction of any new structures would require approval of a building permit.
• Signage. Existing signage on the subject site should be brought into conformance
with the standards proposed for other interim non-farm produce sale uses.
• Site Plan. The applicant must provide site and building plans that demonstrate
conformance with the floor area limitations for non-farm related produce sales.
• Termination. Interim Use Permits require that a definitive date be established for
the termination of the use. In general, it would be reasonable to expect the use of
the site at such time as it may redevelop with higher standard uses planned for a
given parcel. In the case of the subject site, a reasonable termination trigger would
be extension of trunk sanitary sewer and/or water service to areas of Sections 14
and 23, Range 23, east of T. H. 101. Given the applicant's statements regarding
their future plans, the City may want to impose a specific time limit on the permit to
encourage redevelopment of the site. A development contract should be executed
to formalize the terms and conditions of the interim use permit.
Criteria. In evaluating a potential amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and an application
for an interim use permit, the Planning Commission and City Council must take into
consideration the criteria outlined in Section 20-3-2.F and 20-4-2.F of the Zoning
Ordinance. The decision of the Planning Commission and City Council is to be based
upon, but not limited to, the following factors:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment. The intent of the A-1 District is to promote continuation of commercial
agricultural activities within the community and also act as an interim land bank area
to allow for orderly urban growth and development. In this regard, the proposed
interim use is both somewhat in conflict with and in conformance with the intent of
the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed zoning ordinance amendment would allow for a use in the A-1 District
that is more commercial in nature than it is farm related. However, the specific site
in question illustrates that a limited scale business in an appropriate location does
not necessarily cause conflicts and may be appropriate for the short term until urban
development can occur. Therefore, if allowed, there must be an emphasis on
limiting the scale of the operation to 1) not cause conflicts with low intensity uses
Planning Report -Highway 101 Market AmendmentAUP
Page 8
and service capabilities of the A-9 District and 2) not reach such a scale that the
interim use becomes a deferment of commercial rezoning and conformance with
applicable performance standards, which would represent in inequitable
implementation of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission and City Council may also considerthe following policies
that either support or discourage the requested actions:
Support
All development proposals shall be analyzed on an individual basis from a
physical, economic, and social standpoint to determine the most appropriate
uses within the context of the community as a whole. (Policy Plan P. 36)
Discourage
Boundary limits for urban expansion shall be clearly delineated in a staged
manner and non -farming type uses shall be prohibited from prematurely
encroaching into agricultural areas. (Policy Plan p. 36)
Standards for development quality shall be established for all land uses to
insure an enhancement of community character. All such standards shall be
strictly enforced.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: Allowance of a commercial oriented use within the A-1 District, even as
an interim use, raises some compatibility concerns when considered in the boarder
context of the District. Limitations applicable to non-farm related produce stands
have been proposed in order to minimize the scale of such operations and direct
their location to areas capable of supporting them.
Given the agricultural use and character of the area surrounding the subject parcel,
the existing use is likely to be compatible with the present land uses. However, this
area is anticipated to develop with urban commercial uses that would be consistent
with the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing use and site
conditions of the subject site may be incompatible and a negative influence to the
anticipated development pattern. As such, the duration of the interim use must be
limited.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Planning Report - Highway 101 Market Amendment/iUP
Page 9
Comment: The applicant has not provided adequate information to determine
compliance with applicable performance standards (existing or proposed). A
condition of any approval should be submission of a site plan subject to review and
approval of City Staff.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: The introduction of a limited non-farm seasonal produce sales business
has the potential to create negative compatibility impacts with other uses in the A-1
District. The proposed use also raises questions regarding equitable treatment of
commercial uses within the Zoning Ordinance. To address these concerns, any
allowance of non-farm seasonal produce stands must be limited in scale so as not
to be a blight to A-1 District uses or compete directly with allowed commercial uses
in commercial districts.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: Because of the compatibility concerns of allowing a limited commercial
use within the A-1 District, there is potential for impacting property values. As it
pertains to the subject site,, the proposed use is not anticipated to negatively impact
area property values based upon the present character of the area, although no
study has been completed. There would be a concern for the use's influence within
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment: The proposed interim use has potential to generate traffic beyond the
capabilities of rural or urban local streets. Therefore it is recommended that such
uses be limited to parcels adjacent to arterial or collector streets and direct access
from a paved City Street.
The subject site has frontage to T.H. 101 and has direct access from Quantralle
Avenue, which is a paved public street.
7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including
parks, schools, streets, and utilities and its potential to overburden the City's
service capacity.
Comment: The proposed use, and such use of the subject site, is not anticipated to
have a negative impact to the City's service capacity provided it is limited in scale,
has adequate access and does not interfere with implementation of the City's Land
Use Plan.
Planning Report - Highway 101 Market AmendmenblUP
Page 10
CONCLUSION
The applicant's interest is to legitimize the illegal expansion of a non -conforming use of
the subject property that has occurred over the years. In evaluating the request, the
Planning Commission and City Council must first make a determination if the general use
is appropriate, if at all. Given the commercial nature of the use as well as the intent not
to significantly improve the site as other commercial uses are required to do, there are
some obvious compatibility concerns that must be addressed.
If the Planning Commission and City Council believe that the expanded use of the site
does not present compatibility problems within the A-1 District or unfair application of the
Zoning Ordinance, an interim use strategy may be the preferred alternative. This
mechanism provides a means to limit the scale of the use to a level compatible within the
A-1 District and that does not directly compete with commercial uses in commercial zoning
districts. This mechanism also creates an opportunity for the City to limit the duration of
the use. However, we would note that limiting the subject site to those uses for which it
is currently permitted is a viable option that would protect land use compatibility,
encourage potential redevelopment of higher and better use of the site consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the City's growth management strategies, which should not be
overlooked. Specific options for Planning Commission and City Council action are outlined
in the Executive Summary of this report.
pc. Mike Robertson
Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
Larry Kramka, DNR
Richard LeFebvre
Kenneth and Julie Nathe
Planning Report - Highway 101 Market AmendmentgUP
Page 11
N►. C
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
�,- 1
( OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING
ENTERED OC, 2 3 1986 Wright County Court House Permit No.C�6/U
Buffalo, Minnesota Date
APPLICATION FOR USE AND BUILDING PERMIT
LEGAL LOT 1 AND N 12 72/100 A OF LOT 2 EX� PRT FOR HWY
DESCRIPTION
MUST BE Lot Ad i
COMPLETE Tax P elk 214-000-143200 TWP. Name _
Lak Nam 14 TWP. 121 Range 2 3
IDENTIFICATION: Please nformation
Last Name First Initial Mailing Address • No. Street, City and State Zip No. Tel. No.
Owner Lefebvre Rdcthard 9244 NE Parish Avenue 441 -
Elk River, MN 5 330 1807
Contractor LIName Owner
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT: Describe
( ) New Building
( ) Alteration (Specify)
( ) Addition Room
( ) Move In Room
( ) Other
PRINCIPAL TYPE OF FRAME:
( ) Masonry
( ) Wood Frame
( ) Structural Steel
09 Other — Specify po le
DIMENSIONS:
Basement: ( )Yes ( )No
Stories above basement:
Sq. feet (outside dimension)
Bedrooms Baths
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED USE: NON—RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED USE:
( ) One Family Dwelling (Stick Built) Specify: Storage in winter_
( ) Mobile Home Dwelling sellin corn In summer
( ) Garage
OtOther Size 48x88 ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENT $ 20.00
TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL:
( ) Public
( ) Individual Septic Tank, etc.
WATER SUPPLY:
( ) Public
( ) Individual Well
HEATING:
( ) Electric ( )Gas ( ) Oil
( ) Coal ( ) None
Other:
TOWNSHIP OFFICERS COMMENTS: ri
CHARACTERISTICS:
Lot Area is 31.88 square feet. Water frontage is feet
Building set back from high water mark is feet. (Building Line)
Land height above high water mark at building line is.. feet.
Building set back from State H feet County Road 1-3Qe1_}t from�ttonow.�nnship road or street is feet. All measurements from centerline.
Side yard is 30+ and30-F— feet. Rear yard is 50+ feet.
Agreement I hereby certify that the information contained herein is correct and agree to do the proposed work in accordance with the description above
set forth and according to the provisions of the ordinances of Wright County, Minnesota. I further agree that any plans and specifications submitted
herewith shall become a part of this permit application. I also understand that this /permit tiis valid for a period of four (4) months.
9-24-86 x?.fir,
Application Date Signal e o weer or Contractor
Permit: Permission is hereby granted to the above named applicant to perform the work described in th above stat ent. This permit is granted upon the
express condition that the person to whom it is granted and his agent, employees and wo en sha nform in respects to the finances of Wright
County Minnesota. This permit ma be r at any time upon violation of sai mances.
(/p
Iss an Date o lanning and Zoning
Permit Fee $-1 5 . ate Surcharge $ . 00 Receipt No.
Variance Granted (yes) (no) Date:
Conditional Use Permit Granted (yes) (no) Date:
PLANS APPROVED:
Date
Signature of lnsp1EXHIB'T g
Kenneth and Julie Nathe
19080 Lincoln St NW
Elk River, MN 55330
441-3443
Since the spring of 1997 we have made our living by running the 101 Market. We put
up a seasonal greenhouse where we grow and sell annuals and perennials during the
months of April, May and June. We also sell related products such as pots and dirt
that the customers have asked for. In the summer we sell sweet corn and other
locally grown vegetables and fruits. • Business has been growing every year and we
have started thinking about plans for the future. Within the last month the landowner,
Richard Lefebvre, has indicated that he is willing to sell the land to us. We would
like to purchase the land and eventually build a full service garden center and
produce market. It would consist of a retail building of 4000 to 5000 square feet
with permanent glass greenhouses of 6000 to 9000 square feet. We would like to
continue operating 101 Market the way we have for the past three years until we're
able to proceed with our future plans.
Ken and Julie Nathe
EXHIBIT C
pp -
I r�lll
mam
ts
F. . '
.�.. �i` [W—P
a.
'{' .• !!hF'i1wl J� �'h t+. yT L i' ( � .... {yy� e"- .
�5 t Y y�j��4 �t�k 'tA�i y�� l•���L',y�°^' �^i�,t�tt'"' .sr �����IF�i�'Y✓r� J J I
.t• �„_.:_.r�.aEt' ` _=kt,�iee' J ,�. �f. r •Il.:? t _i.._.. r..,. .�e:��..�.,,� � }. •
THE
5 0 - ol
M A R K E T
WEST SIDE -ELEV
FUTURE
I
EA -ST SIDE ELEV
1 0 0 - ol
R '-E E . N K '0' u S E
I
1 0 1 M A R K E T
THE
FUTURE -
<14
N G L. A Y O U T
&
R K I N G
1 0 1 M A R K E T
;D
m
THE
FUTURE
L 9 0 —ol
1 0 1 M A R K E T
R E A R' E L E V '
F R O N T E L E V
MEMO
Date: April 5, 2000
To: Mayor & Council
From: City Administrator Mike Robertson
Re: Highway 101 Market Request
Highway 101 Market will be before you at the Council
meeting to ask that they be allowed to continue
construction of a greenhouse while their application
for a Conditional Use Permit is going through the
Planning Commission. I thought I would provide a brief
history of this property, the use on it, and the City's
interaction with the landowner and renter.
The landowner, Richard Lefebvre, received a permit from
Wright County in 1986 to construct a building on the
site. I have enclosed a copy of the permit. The
permit states that the building will be used for
seasonal crop sales only, no commercial, and no
permanent advertising.
Richard Lefebvre apparently rented the building to the
applicant, Ken Nathe, three years ago. In 1999 the
City received a complaint about the use of the site and
the number of advertising signs on the site. The
Council directed staff to review all properties along
Highway 101 for compliance with City ordinances.
Highway 101 Market, along with other businesses along
Highway 101, were contacted. I did not keep a copy of
the letter I sent Richard Lefebvre at that time.
Eventually, Highway 101 Market removed the additional
signs and came into compliance with the City's sign
ordinance. I had conversations with both the landowner
and building renter late in 1999 and early in 2000. In
each conversation I urged them to apply for a permit
since they obviously wanted to use the site for more
than seasonal crop sales.
On Monday, March 27, 2000, I was informed that someone
was constructing a building on the site. I asked
Building Inspector Jerry Olson if a building permit had
been pulled for this and he said it had not. I
directed Jerry to put a "Stop Work" order on the
building.
On Tuesday, March 28, 2000 Ken Nathe contacted me. He
asked if he could have permission to continue
construction of the building since he had already
ordered plants. I said he had to apply for a permit.
He asked if he could speak to the Council about going
ahead with construction while his permit application is
being reviewed by the Planning Commission. That is why
he is before you tonight.
cc: Ken Nathe, Highway 101 Market
Richard Lefebvre
2
�"j•� OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING
ENTERED AJC . 2 3 IS86 Wright County Court House Permit No.
Buffalo, Minnesota Date
APPLICATION FOR USE AND BUILDING PERMIT
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
LOT 1 AND N 12 72/100 A OF LOT 2 EX_ PRT FOR HWY
MUST BE Lot Ad
COMPLETE Tax P el a 214-000-143200 TWP. Name __
Lak Na 14 TWP. 121 Range 23
IDENTIFICATION: Please nformation
Last Name First Initial Mailing Address . No. Street, City and State Zip No. Tel. No.
Owner Lefebvre Rddhard 9244 NE Parish Avenue 441 -
Elk River. IAV 5 330 1807
Contractor I Name Owner
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT: Describe
( ) New Building
( ) Alteration (Specify)
( ) Addition ROOM
( ) Move In Room
( ) Other
PRINCIPAL TYPE OF FRAME
( ) Masonry
( ) Wood Frame
( ) Structural Steel
CA Other — Specify pole
DIMENSIONS:
Basement: ( )Yes ( )No
Stories above basement:
Sq. feet (outside dimension)
Bedrooms Baths
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED USE: NON—RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED USE:
( ) One Family Dwelling (Stick Built) Specify. Storage in winter
( ) Mobile Home Dwelling sellin corn in Summer
( ) Garage
(}d Other Size 48}x;88 ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENT $ 2 0 00 •
TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL
( ) Public
( ) Individual Septic Tank, etc.
WATER SUPPLY:
( ) Public
() Individual Well
HEATING:
( ) Electric ( )Gas ( ) Oil
( ) Coal ( ) None
Other:
TOWNSHIP OFFICERS COMMENTS:
CHARACTERISTICS:
Lot Area is 31 • 88 square feet. Water frontage is feet
Building set back from high water mark is feet. (Building Line)
Land height above high water mark at building line is /�� feet.
Building set back from State Hv�+yY — feet County Road 13Qe�t from township road or street is feet. All measurements from centerline.
Side yard is 30+ and 30 -t- feet. Rear yard is 50+ feet.
Agreement: I hereby certify that the information contained herein is correct and agree to do the proposed work in accordance with the description above
set forth and according to the provisions of the ordinances of Wright County, Minnesota. I further agree that any plans and specifications submitted
herewith shall become a part of this permit application. I also understand that this permit is valid for a period of four (4) months.
9-24-86 X i _
IZ2 , 'eLp
Application Date Signal e JN7ner or Contractor
Permit: Permission is hereby granted to the above named applicant to perform the work described in th above statement. This permit is granted upon the
express condition that the person to whom it is granted and his agent, employees and wo en sha nform in respects to the inances of Wright
County Minnesota. This permit m �be O r at any time upon violation of sai inances.
Iss an Date Offic o lanning and Zoning
Permit Fee $ - 15 • ate Surcharge $ . 00 Receipt No. -ek-F
Variance Granted (yes) (no) Date:
PLANS APPROVED:
Conditional Use Permit Granted (yes) (no) Date:
Signature of Inspector
Date
I
APH-11-2000 TUE 02;27 PM BAUERLY CO. SAUK RAPIDS FAX NO. 3202510011
RLY
BU I LbjJG
B[7T[q
COMMyK ITIl3
To: Elaine Beatty 9
From: Alice Coudron, -Brian Baueriy
Date; 04/11100
�
Memo
Re: Otsego- Bajari/ Bauerly Companies, Concrete Plant
Because of issues to be discussed at the April j Sh meeting at the city of
Otsego, we are withdrawing our request to be on the agenda of the planning
commission meeting, until some of these issues are resolved.
Thank you.
4787 SHADOW WOOD DR. NE SAUK RAPIDS, MN 55379
320.251.9472 FAX 320,251.001 1